05 March 2012 9:34 AM

Is Google biased? If so, how does it work, and who can tell me?

Every time I Google the word ‘Hitchens’ , this weblog is of course mentioned. What’s interesting is the extract from the blog which then appears below. I’ve vaguely noticed that it’s often not from what I’ve written, but from an uncomplimentary reference to me by a contributor. I wish I’d logged them in the past. I certainly shall in future. Currently, for instance, if you Google ‘Hitchens’, the quotation from this site is the following rather mysterious selection:

“Anyone who gives the BNP’s manifesto just a cursory glance will see that Peter Hitchens and Nick…”

Last Friday it was a bit longer and read : “Anyone who gives the BNP’s manifesto just a cursory glance will see that Peter Hitchens and Nick Griffin more often than not agree on both… “

Now, as it happens, on Saturday I e-mailed the Google media relations office (no phone number appears to be available for this important bureau) and asked if they could explain why this particular quote had been selected from my fairly large output and reasonably large response to that output. I have had no reply, but at some point over the weekend, the quotation has been shortened.

If I make similar searches on some other blogs, I find that the same slot, referring to ‘Guido Fawkes’ is , quite properly, a description of the site ‘Discussion on parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy’ . Toby Young is summed up with ‘The Sun shone yesterday’ ( a direct quotation from the beginning of his most recent posting). ‘Conservative Home’ is summed up as : ’Former Conservative Central office staffer Tim Montgomerie comments on British politics and the Conservative Party’. Melanie Phillips gets a mention of her book ‘The World Turned Upside Down. By Melanie Phillips’.

And so on. I’d be grateful for any other examples (the key is to put in the name of the blogger and do an ‘everything’ search) Yet when one contributor to my blog seeks to associate me (falsely) with Nick Griffin and the BNP, this rather obscure and obtuse extract is placed on the web as typical of my blog, and lingers there for many days, long after I have posted blogs on several subsequent subjects. How does this happen? If it is done by a computer programme, what is that programme designed to do?

Dear Mr Hitchens, I won't say it was naive to actually write to the people at Google asking them a question like that, since to be ignored is more empirically solid than just to asssume that one would be and never to make the attempt. But it was naive actually to expect them to reply, for not only is the basis for the world's most famous search engine's ordering of search results probably one of the most jealously guarded commercial secrets of the age, but even for Google to say as much as that in a reply declining to answer the question would be to admit more than they would wish to do, today.

What we can say, some of which other comments have said already, is that an early trick was to use the META tags in the HTML markup of a given page to summarize content, so that engines could use it to prioritize matches. However an entire parasitic "consultancy" industry quickly grew up offering for a fee to tweak company websites to get them more attention in searches, and these people initially did their trick chiefly via those META tags (which ordinary folk, writing web pages naively, were unaware of though later website tools would have let them work with). Google soon put META tags to one side. They started to record statistics of which pages people chose to click on (visit) faced with results of a prticular search and so to prioritize (list earlier) those visited most often. The trouble with that is, it's possible to write software that acts like a browser, does Google searches of major keywords for a site, then find and click on the links to that site, so companies could put these tools to work clogging up Google with searches for words they wished people to connect with them, attempting to defraud the statistics. Nothing will have stopped that happening except first, the sheer vast numbers of real people doing real searches, and then second, the Google servers noting the IP (internet protocol) addresses from which visitors were working, detecting these fraudulent mass search activities, and blacklisting those addresses. Then of course Google could start recording everybody's IP addresses with their searches, and by correlating which search visitors did which kind of searches (general knowledge, politics, science, IT info, shopping) nd adjusting the sequencing/prioritizing of results ccording to the apparent previous search interests of each "caller" (if we think of each Google visit & search as like a phone call). So if you are sitting in a desk at the Daily Mail using one of their internet connections you could get different results from Google compared to when you use your own broadband sitting at home and searching.

However, as Google will still never comment, all current explanations of how the Google engine currently works must be based on a fair slice of surmise. Still, some of the logic is almost inescapable. Does this help?

I would also subscribe to the comments posted by: Iain Campbell | 05 March 2012 at 10:32 AM. I think it does have something to do with cookie trackers, which bring up things that one has recently looked at. That suggestion certainly is a strong possibility, as I frequently google 'Peter Hitchens' to get to your blog (as opposed to coming direct via the url page link/directory) and I have not *noticed* these quotes regarding the BNP, though I have, like Mr Campbell, seen old posts unrelated to the BNP come up in the search for reasons unknown.

The contributors who mentioned meta-tags are giving solid advice. Google's web crawlers will use those heavily to determine what's important on a site and what isn't, and will index accordingly. I'd be very surprised if after those tags have been updated that the search result on 'Hitchens' doesn't change for the better.

As mentioned, the Google indexing methods are a trade secret but they do take into account keyword popularity. 'BNP' and 'Nick Griffin' are hot button names and will attract the attention of the search engine.

This is partly down to the fact we are living in a "left-wing capitalist" state and have been for some time now. The reason is that 50-100 years ago intellectuals from the left and right (and by left & right I DON'T mean Lib Dem and Tory) used to have regular debates, discussions and talks etc. All the time - This is no longer possible now in the 21st century, make of that what you will.

What's happened now is that many people with what was traditional "mainstream" Conservative ideas have sort of been pushed aside by media outlets particularly those that subscribe to the doctrines of the BBC and the Guardian - especially if those ideas question, challenge or criticize police(s) such as immigration, foreign aid, homosexuality equality, transgender equality, bi-sexual equality every form of equality going! Same sex marriages, the death penalty...the list goes on.

The people who harbour doubts and don't agree with the doctrines listed above are branded by those doctrines as all sorts of colourful words - We saw it a few weeks back on Questiontime, a former employer of the Daily Mail was expressing her view that Quatada should be deported a.s.a.p then the straight away an audience member then said something along the lines of "...well your views are exactly the same as the leader of the BNP" and for the next two minutes the pannelist had to say how she wasn't a supporter of the BNP!

This how we've declined as a society and until we rid ourselves of self-denigration and positive discrimination, we will forever decline.

I always enjoy your posts, and you're normally a pretty sensible writer so please don't continue with this suggestion that Google is in some way biased against you, it makes you look silly to people who understand the Internet a little better.

One of the first posts from Mr Swire contains some solid advice, but in general I'd suggest asking an expert before your general readership. You risk coming off as slightly barking otherwise.

There is a very well known version of what you have suggested however. Try googling Santorum. This has been deliberately gamed by the pro gay lobby in the USA to embarrass the presidential nominee. It is possible, although very unlikely, that someone could have done something similar to you.

Clegg and Cameron in the Eurovision Song Contest? Not a bad idea, but given their propensity for involving our armed forces in faraway foreign wars, I suggest that "Boom-Bang-A-Bang" might be a better choice of song.

It's not something to worry about, or it is something to worry about but not what you thought! It's normal for Google search results to differ for the same query from different people or computers. Google uses both any logged in accounts and cookies to identify the person/machine who submits the query, and results are tailored according to that person's profile. That profile may include search history, shopping habits, email contents, previous responses to advertising and so on. For some people this means getting much more useful search results, while others may notice an 'ever decreasing circles' effect. I suspect that there is nothing to be gained in trying to second guess the mind of Almighty G{od,oogle}. Fortunately one of the big Gs offers an opt out: set up your web browser to discard cookies whenever you close it. Some cookies are useful so make sure you can add exceptions in order to retain those you want.

Not knowing which web browser you use, or its capabilities, I'd suggest trying Firefox and exploring its privacy options and perhaps using the noscript addon.

Could I just point out that I came across an advert (I think it was on a newspaper website) for a "Google +" Debate, with your face on it? I note that this is a debate about "the war on drugs" and that tickets for the event cost £35. I find this a little distasteful because the people from parts of the country most affected by the drugs problem will probably be unable to afford the ticket price, so it will be a very unrepresentative audience.

This is not a criticism; I just thought you and others would be interested about the Google + advert and sympathetic about my concerns over the ticket price.

I think part of the problem is that your blog has empty 'meta' tags - these are descriptive text hidden in the header of the page. They would normally be set up when the site is established - an omission probably made (and potentially corrected) by your site's technical administrator.

You can see this for yourself using 'view source' in your browser . Setting the 'meta description' tag for your page with a description specified by you would probably cause it to appear against your Google listing. Otherwise the job is left up to Google's own algorithm to cast around within the text found on your page, which can produce some undesirable and unpredictable results.

The link accompanying my name is to a Google page which explains how meta tags are used.

Google works by looking for the words you've searched for and then highlights the section of the website containing those phrases on the search page.
Since the only time someone will use your name Peter is when they are addressing you personally those comments will always be the ones picked up unless you start using your own name in your posts.

It probably always seems to highlight the negative comments because there are so many of them since your quite out of step with most people on a lot of things and tend to talk about subjects that encourage the trolls.

Yes, Google search results are produced by a computer. The exact algorithm is a well kept secret but it's not politically biased in the way you seem to imply.

If you own a web site, you can manually add your site to Google's index and add your own description of your website. I imagine that Guido Fawkes has done this which is where the 'Discussion on parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy' has come from. Get your techies to add yours.

It's strange the BNP quote came up though. Is it possible the contributor put the same comment on multiple articles? I can see it was on 'Our laws, our freedom and our people... Kidnapped by America' and also 'Dialogues of the Deaf – part two, Russia and the fellow travellers'. That might have fooled Google into thinking it was particularly relevant.

I'm also kind of sceptical that it did this for any length of time on your main site and in future you should take a screenshot.

Are you awaiting a comment from me . Alas Google and I have not met ,either in the physical or spiritual plane .
What youy must understand is this . The BNP manifesto and your ideas on how best to halt the demise of this once great country .Are pretty close . Differing only on race. What I falsely stated was the you purlioned the BNP's ideas and said they were your own. Not that they were similar. The latter requiring no apology whatsoever
So I am sorry if I find myself having a little chuckle at your discomfort. But then when one stands on that soap box. these things attack and bite, like an annoying insect.
But like I said some time back . Nick Griffin is more famous. Although today he isn't seen around much by those that find glee in that fact. A concerted effort to deny a legal party oxygen .
But I also feel you may agree with that principle. Although you spout freedom in all its guises. As this post leads me to believe one freeedom you would stop if empowered to do so.
Just an add on, the BNP manifesto is not the thoughts of Chairman Nick but mostly predate him being a member. Whether thats a comfort I know not.

yes, google like all other mainstream outlets has a vulgar leftist bias. wikipedia especially appears to be edited by an army of left wing bigots-- i urge any conservative minded person to re edit wiki whenever possible.

Iain Campbell
Cookies are used to track people across multiple websites and have done for ages in order to target advertising. Companies will longer be able to do this from May 2012 without your explicit permission due to a new EU privacy law. The Information Commisioner will be responsible for enforcing this ruling in the UK.

"Funny that it should happen then, even though by my count I had put up at least three other postings before that over the past several days, without any such effect."

It's not really unexpected. This post contains the term 'Hitchens' -- the same term that you are searching with -- four times, which presumably affects the weighting on the algorithm, giving it more prominence in the search results.

Google uses an automated algorithm. Clever people can game the system (for a short while at least) but it's unlikely that the Google algorithm is 'biased' in the traditional sense.

From what I remember when I constructed my own website, the site owner has much control over the content that is revealed in a search. A URL owner can use 'Google site submission' to optimize the hit rate of a site.
If Google site submission is not used to customize search results, the Google results tend to show the more prominent text from pages such as titles, capitals bold and headers. text higher up the page is more likely to appear then that lower down.

I'm not sure how Google works it out, but I have on occasion googled 'Peter Hitchens' and I've never seen such a comment about the BNP

I never use 'Hitchens' when looking for this blog as it predictably brings up Christopher, but I tried just now and it was this most recent post (when I eventually got to it) - in some other cases I have googled blogs by name and it always brings up a certain post, which may be based on popularity..I don't know, i leave this to the techies

Seems to me Peter that it still mentions the BNP quote, just the one you have reproduced today. Perhaps they pick up on the " symbol? Hopefully it will change when you next post a blog.

My own experience was that you are able to write a description of what appears under your google search. This is the case with my website, whose google search result is similar in structure to Guido Fawkes', ie brief description and a few links... La Chiesa Del Corno, a defunct Sunday morning football team

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.